Would you support a compromise to grant DC statehood in exchange for merging Democratic states?

[Lykaon]

Admit DC but also partition Jefferson out of Northern CA and SW Oregon 2 senators for each party and likely the house partisanship would stay the same only adding 1D from DC and 1R from the Oregon part of Jefferson

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Idea: pass a law that decrees that DC gets treated as a state for purpose of congressional representation. No need to split the district...

I wouldn't vote no, but that would likely take a constitutional amendment that 14 red states could kill, and it also wouldn't address the issue of DC's lack of home rule.

Well, you know what they say, half a loaf is better than none.

[7,052,770]

Idea: pass a law that decrees that DC gets treated as a state for purpose of congressional representation. No need to split the district...

I wouldn't vote no, but that would likely take a constitutional amendment that 14 red states could kill, and it also wouldn't address the issue of DC's lack of home rule.

Well, you know what they say, half a loaf is better than none.

Sure, but this is a "no loaves" situation since there isn't anywhere close to enough Republican support to get 2/3 in both Houses or 38 states. That's why the carve out statehood method is the only realistic way to get this done.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Idea: pass a law that decrees that DC gets treated as a state for purpose of congressional representation. No need to split the district...

I wouldn't vote no, but that would likely take a constitutional amendment that 14 red states could kill, and it also wouldn't address the issue of DC's lack of home rule.

Well, you know what they say, half a loaf is better than none.

Sure, but this is a "no loaves" situation since there isn't anywhere close to enough Republican support to get 2/3 in both Houses or 38 states. That's why the carve out statehood method is the only realistic way to get this done.

Well, if the issue is congressional representation or lack of it, then my idea solves that, and it ducks the whole "federal district" issue because nowhere does it say that said federal district cannot be represented in either House of Congress.
The downside of my idea is that it's just a law and Rs could repeal it.
The problem with carveout is that it probably looks more ridiculous to outside observers and runs into more hurdles. The upside of it is that while it's harder to achieve, it's also harder to reverse.
Alternatively, one could pass an amendment codifying that the District of Columbia has congressional representation, or even that it has home rule. But the more you add the more reasons people have to oppose it. However, this is, of course, "no loaves" because it'd be very unlikely to pass anyway...
How feasible is home rule for DC?

[Del Tachi]

Why not just give most of DC to Maryland at that point? Its the simplest approach, but the reason Dems are against it is because they want 2 new safe D senators.

Retrocession may seem like common sense to outsiders, but neither Washingtonians nor Marylanders want it. Those proposals have long been associated with racism, first as an attempt to preserve the slave trade in the city before abolitionists had it banned and later to dilute the voting power of the black population- not to mention DC has a unique identity going back centuries now and wants to be represented by its own. And Maryland certainly doesn't want to be saddled with all DC's expenses.

The problem with this concept of "retrocession" is that it means a loss of Federal control over the District, much akin to when Arlington County was ceded back to Virginia in 1847.  Simply numbering D.C. residents as Maryland citizens is a retrocession only in terms of apportionment; under this plan, Washington, D.C. could remain under Federal jurisdiction and all of its current laws. 

[Del Tachi]

I never said NYC should be it's own state.

Great.  Now you should understand why your point about Loving County, TX was in bad faith LOL

And if you want to make the argument about small states having undue influence just look at Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, etc. Ideally the US Senate should be abolished, but clearly that's not going to happen.

The difference, of course, is that Wyoming and the Dakotas have each been states for 100+ years.  That admitting them would have unduly imbalanced the Senate would have been a reasonable enough suggestion when any of them were originally admitted, but the population imbalance in the Senate now is even more severe.  WY is 67x the size of CA today; comparatively, NY was only 47x larger than WY when the latter was admitted in 1888. 

I also question the wisdom of bringing up the idea that the Dakotas should be combined in a debate about D.C. statehood.  In 2023, D.C. is still less populated than either North or South Dakota. 

My overall point is that if DC was Republican leaning there would be no question about making it a state. You are too cowardly to admit your opposition is purely partisan. You are devoted to a party above principle.

So far, the only people in this thread who have talked about D.C. statehood as a "red vs blue" issue are those supporting it.  I have articulated multiple, non-partisan reasons to object to D.C. statehood.  You're handwaving them away as if they aren't real.  If you want to agree to disagree let's just do that, but can you please stop putting words in my mouth?  or acting like you get to decide what my "actual" beliefs are?  LOL 

[John Dule]

Why not just give most of DC to Maryland at that point? Its the simplest approach, but the reason Dems are against it is because they want 2 new safe D senators.

Retrocession may seem like common sense to outsiders, but neither Washingtonians nor Marylanders want it. Those proposals have long been associated with racism, first as an attempt to preserve the slave trade in the city before abolitionists had it banned and later to dilute the voting power of the black population- not to mention DC has a unique identity going back centuries now and wants to be represented by its own. And Maryland certainly doesn't want to be saddled with all DC's expenses.

Wow. I'm in awe of the sheer gall it takes to claim that a <70 square mile area of swampland has a "unique identity going back centuries" and therefore deserves two senators and House representation. You know what else has a "unique identity?" The Bay Area, which has millions more people than DC and is more economically and politically viable as a separate entity. Why are we not clamoring to divide up California, when our ~40 million residents are woefully underrepresented in the Senate? Until we have achieved more equitable representation, there is nothing to be gained by admitting another pointless sh*thole east coast state with less than two million residents.

[Del Tachi]

DC is already heavily reliant on Maryland and Virginia as it stands. We say this on January 6 when it had to rely on the National Guard of those two states. It's also true for other stuff like WMATA. Geographically, it is inevitable that the federal district will be to some extent reliant on nearby states. This hasn't been a problem until now and I don't see any reason why it would become one.

Each of the 50 States is dependent on the others to some extent.  The current size/population of D.C. allows it to function as its own city, raise taxes, and have its own schools, police force, sewer & water, etc.  A reduced Federal district would not be able to do any of those things, and would thus be dangerously reliant on other states for basic functions.    

The fact that you omit the Senate here is very revealing. The notion that your objection to DC senators is some principled objection to small states having undue Senate representation is laughable – if it were true, you'd be agitating for a unified state of Dakota. The arguments against such a unification – namely, that it would needlessly upset the status quo – apply just as much, if not more so, to this whole Maryland pipe dream. There's no more sense in unifying two historically separated jurisdictions in the one case than in the other.

The House and the Senate serve distinct purposes.  Charging that not giving D.C. representation in the Senate is "unfair" ignores the very obvious fact that Senate is purposed to serve as a counter-majoritarian body, as it flagrantly violates the "one man, one vote" principle by design.  There is a real debate to be had about what good such a body accomplishes in the 21st century—and I believe reforms to reduce the power of the Senate are a good idea—but letting D.C. "join the club" does not advance this goal.  

In my opinion, the House should be understood as the sole body constituted of the people's elected representatives.  And I mean all people, which I why I support expanding the House and giving D.C., Puerto Rico, all other U.S. territories, and U.S. citizens living abroad voting representation therein.  

I'm totally able to engage, as I just showed, but it's frankly a waste of everyone's time, since you're being dishonest about your reasons for believing the things you believe. The problem with the forum today isn't accusations of partisan hackery, as you put it – if anything, it's the willingness to be so dishonest with your peers.

I am not being dishonest about what I believe, and that you would assert to know my "real" motivations only shows that you are unable to actually consider any opinion besides your own.  You simply behave like you have a monopoly on the truth.  

[Roronoa D. Law]

So far, the only people in this thread who have talked about D.C. statehood as a "red vs blue" issue are those supporting it.  I have articulated multiple, non-partisan reasons to object to D.C. statehood.  You're handwaving them away as if they aren't real.  If you want to agree to disagree let's just do that, but can you please stop putting words in my mouth?  or acting like you get to decide what my "actual" beliefs are?  LOL 

You sure about that?

Why not just give most of DC to Maryland at that point? Its the simplest approach, but the reason Dems are against it is because they want 2 new safe D senators.

Also it is just me or have calls for DC statehood quieted down a lot since the midterms?

I'm convinced that the DC statehood movement only became a big thing because some Democrats legitimately thought Republicans would get a filibuster-proof Senate majority after 2024. It would not have been a thing if Bill Nelson had at least tried to look like he cared or if Cal Cunningham just had a bit more discipline.

I would support DC statehood on the condition that the entire DC metro area joins it

Admit DC but also partition Jefferson out of Northern CA and SW Oregon 2 senators for each party and likely the house partisanship would stay the same only adding 1D from DC and 1R from the Oregon part of Jefferson

[Frodo]

No.  I oppose DC statehood, period.  I have an up-close and personal view of home rule, and I shudder to think what DC as a state would be like. 

[Ferguson97]

No.  I oppose DC statehood, period.  I have an up-close and personal view of home rule, and I shudder to think what DC as a state would be like. 

By this logic, we should revoke statehood for states like Mississippi and Alabama because of the awful things they do locally.